Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
A MURDER MYSTERY has been solved — 65 years later — with the confession of a 96-year-old woman.
The 1946 killing of Felix Gulje, the head of a construction company who at the time was being considered for a high political post, roiled the Netherlands, and the failure to find the assassin became a point of contention among political parties.
On Wednesday, the mayor of Leiden, Henri Lenferink, said a woman has confessed to the killing, saying it happened in the mistaken belief that Gulje had collaborated with the Nazis.
Lenferink said he received a letter from the woman, whom he identified as Atie Ridder-Visser, on 1 January Two subsequent interviews with her and a review of the historical archives persuaded him that her story was true.
On the cold sleeting night of March 1, 1946, Atie Visser rang Gulje’s doorbell in Leiden, and told his wife that she had a letter to give to her husband. When he came to the door she shot him in the chest. He died in the ambulance, the mayor said, reading a lengthy statement at a news conference.
Visser had been a member of the resistance during the 1940-1945 Nazi occupation. Rumors had been circulating that Gulje was working with the occupation authorities, and he had been targeted in the underground press. His company did regular business with the Germans, and several employees belonged to a pro-Nazi organization.
He was arrested after the war, but acquitted.
After his death it emerged that Gulje had sheltered some Jews and had given money to help hide others with other families. A banned Catholic association also held secret meetings in his home, Lenferink said.
Visser moved to Indonesia after the war, where she met and married Herman Ridder. Childless, they moved back to the Netherlands several years later, also spending a few years in Spain.
Lenferink said police never suspected the woman in the killing.
After disclosing her role, Ridder-Visser met two grandchildren of her victim last month to explain what happened and why she did it, the mayor said. He did not disclose details of that conversation.
Ridder-Visser will not be prosecuted, he said. Although the 18-year statute of limitations was lifted for serious crimes in 2006, prosecutors ruled that the change in law would not apply in this case.
“Even now, after 65 years, the murder should be strongly condemned,” Lenferink said. “It is a case of vigilantism, and is unacceptable.”
But he appealed to reporters to leave her alone. “Mrs. Ridder-Visser is a very old, very frail woman who hears poorly, is disabled and needs help,” he said.
- AP
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
I can only imagine what it must have been like to live in those dark times. I would not like to be on a jury relating to this case!
She should be brought to justice. This is clearly a case of ageism. She committed a crime, and should now face the consequences. This shows people can commit muder and get away with it if they remain undected for a good six decades. Maybe if Madeline McCann’s murderer/kidnapper comes out in 40 or 50 years we’ll say, “Mr/s Joe Bloggs is a very old, very frail wo/man who hears poorly, is disabled and needs help.” I surely hope not!
The comment above should be reported for stupidity and a gross display of moral panic!
Please, there is no stupidity. I was saying that it is grossly unfair not to put this woman on trial. He committed a crime, and MUST face the consequences of her actions. As the Gardaí say, “Can’t do the time? Don’t do the crime.” She did the crime, and is NOT facing the time.
And on your point that my comment should be removed. This is not Libya. This is not Syria. This is Ireland. Over here we have freedom of speech. I strongly believe what I said was kept in context with the subject matter without infriging on peoples rights. For you to suggest such a thing shows your stupidity as a human being and a gross display of common sense.
Dope. She is an old, frail woman who poses absolutely no danger to anybody. Prison would be absolutely pointless. She has already served a life sentence with the grief and pain that she must have felt for the past 60 years. You have absolutely no idea what it was like to live in Nazi-occupied Netherlands, if you did you might be able to empathize, if not agree with, the woman’s actions.
Yeah because at the age of 96 there’s time to really punish this mad bitch.
She could have a life sentence left in her yet ;-)
I think she should at least go on trial.. regardless of a likely jury acquittal. You have to be consistent with upholding the law or the rule of law is undermined.
She murdered an innocent man in cold blood after the war had ended and when nazis or nazi sympathisers no longer had power. If she thought she had a compelling case she should have brought it to the newly reinstated Dutch authorities. Grand if it were outside the statute of limitations, but it’s not.
You may say it’s stupid or a big waste of time to bring her to trial if you believe she shouldn’t see a jail cell – it’s merely a difference of opinion on upholding the consistency of the rule of law. Fair trial amongst your peers and all that
Prison is for rehabilitation and to remove a threat from society. I doubt these are applicable. Also there was a statute of limitations in place up to 2006. You cannot apply a law retrospectively. Besides costing the tax payer a lot of money, I don’t see any good coming from taking this to court.
@Patrick Coffey.
HA! You are pathetic, trying to start an argument by calling me a “dope”. How do you know she has regretted what she did? It doesn’t say it ANYWHERE in the article. So in conclusion, keep your stupid comments to yourself and in future, try to refrain yourself from “trying to slag” another person off. It shows your ignorant, imperfect self. :)
watched schindlers list last night, only movie that brings tear to the eye. the dark side of human beings. some of the things done were beyond belief. so much hatred.
Yeah I agree, hindsight is….
Lads…she doesn’t have to go on trial. She has admitted her guilt without being accused. There is nothing to try. And in relation to punishment, along with having lived with her actions, being deaf and disabled…she’s already in prison. I would agree however, that her crime should still be condemned: she got it wrong and killed an innocent man.
have your say